 |
|
Add to My Group
|
March 26, 2008 at 06:53:48
The Obama Campaign's Strategic Blunder – They Made it Personal by Angie Pratt Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
|
When the Obama campaign made its claim of racism against Hillary after theNew Hampshire primary they made a booboo. A big one. Prior to that Clinton's supporters were open to entertaining a vote for Obama. Maybe he'd be OK. The evening of Hillary's win in New Hampshire the claim came out that Hillary had somehow cheated. Somehow she had gotten white folks to vote for her because she was white and Obama was black. That claim was used to explain away Obama's defeat and set the stage for getting out the black vote in South Carolina. The media jumped on it. It explained how they could have been so wrong. Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermann actually had to tone down their anti-Hillary rhetoric for a week or so. So this lie got repeated over and over again. It worked. Obama had a winning strategy. If he could consistently get 80% to 90% of the black vote he'd be set.
The result was the black community united behind Obama in South Carolina. Instead of getting at least 40% to 50% of the black vote that she probably would have gotten, Hillary got only 22%.
Well … if it worked once … try it again. So the Obama camp called the Clintons racists again and again and again – at every opportunity.
The national media loved it. It fit with the stereotype that many wanted to tag Hillary with anyway – that's she'd do anything to win – including playing the race card. What black would vote for her if she'd stoop so low. Just goes to show that white folks can't be trusted.
All Hillary could say was “no I didn't.” As the Obama campaign knew/knows full well, disproving the negative is virtually impossible.
The problem with this approach and the strategic blunder for the Obama Campaign is that in the process of calling the Clintons racists they were also calling Hillary Clinton's supporters racists too. They made it personal.
Emotions boiled over. Blacks were mad because Obama was victimized by “mean ole Clinton.” Clinton's supporters were mad because they were being called racists too – most of whom had spent their lives trying to make themselves and this country colorblind.
Then the Rev. Wright revelation came out. In their tone deafness, Obama supporters tried to brush the issue aside by saying Rev. Wright was ACTUALLY typical – he wasn't an extreme example of black preachers.
"You mean it isn't just a few blacks who think that way?" asked whites to themselves and their friends. In so doing, Obama supporters inadvertently confirmed what had been whispered about in the white community for a long time – blacks are racists too.
Then the Obama folks made one more mistake. They went ahead and directly personalized the issue. In so many words they said, “if you can't understand, appreciate the context of Rev. Wright i.e., black liberation theology, then YOU (not just Hillary) are a racist.”
The response to that verbalized accusation by non-Obama supporters is/was perfectly predictable – “if you're going to call me one, I'm going to call you one.”
Nana nana boo boo!
Now many Hillary's supporters aren't going to vote for Obama if he wins the nomination. Remember those fabled moderates and independents that Obama said he'd be able to win? They aren't going to vote for him either. They got lumped together with the Hillary supporters and labeled racists too.
So much for being a uniter.
The Obama Campaign should have never played the race card. The consequences will reverberate well past the election.
www.politicalposts.com
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 6 comments |
|
Really?
I recall the election fraud flags going up in New Hampshire, as there was plenty of prima facie evidence to hoist them. Indeed, I believe I hoisted at least one myself. I don't remember the Obama campaign's claims of racism, though, and I was paying attention at the time. I do recall Bill Clinton's suggestions that Barack Obama is just another Jessie Jackson, not to be given much consideration other than what his race could accomplish (a lot like you're doing here) and that seemed to motivate the African American population of South Carolina which had previously been divided between the candidates. So, I have to ask, are you getting your historical revisionism in talking points from Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson? Or are you just making this up out of whole cloth? I notice that Hillary Clinton does pretty well among older white women. Applying your own reasoning, shall we conclude that Hillary is conducting a campaign based solely on a combination of appeals to age and gender? I understand that you may believe that your conclusions could not be anything other than correct, but please, do not underestimate your capacity for self delusion. by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1793 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 26, 2008 at 8:37:15 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: Works both way
Boy Howdy is that ever a two way street. Personally I wouldn't drink beer with any politican -- they are all egoist who'll do anything to win. And ... there always claims and counterclaims of dirty tricks. Not an excuse -- just a fact. Too bad Obama's playing of the race card was so successful. Winning friends and influencing people -- NOT by Angie Pratt (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Wednesday, Mar 26, 2008 at 9:00:50 AM (0+)
|
|
Obama's strategic albatross
I think there has been a strategic blunder in the Obama campaign but I’m not so sure Obama made it. I think of it more as a strategic albatross. As I remember (or maybe, as Mr. Sanchez points out, it’s all a delusion), Obama was doing pretty well at defining himself as a candidate for all the people. He seemed pointedly to avoid being cast as “the Black candidate”. The Black community even debated within itself whether Obama was “Black enough.” Unfortunately (some would say), the Black community apparently decided Obama was Black enough and embraced him wholeheartedly. They, not he, began to define Obama as “the Black candidate.” Jeremiah Wright finished the job with his from-the-pulpit rant that included the line, “Hillary ain’t never been called a n-word.” That said, in effect, “Vote for Barack because he’s the Black candidate.” He made the campaign about race and not about change, hope, experience, Iraq, health care, or anything else. For many whites, Rev. Wright was a turn-off and the more they learned about Wright, the more they looked askance at Obama. Example: Obama attended his church for 20 years. Was he influenced by Wright? If so, how? And if he attended Trinity for 20 years and says he was not influenced by him, well, that would be completely unbelievable. Did he attend only for the appearance of being a churchgoer? Obama did not really help his cause when he wrote, “I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.” For sure, new statements will emerge in the future. When they become “at issue,” will Obama reject them too? The strategic effect of all this may be to drive more non-Black votes away from Obama than it attracts Black votes to him, producing a net loss of votes. If he gets the nomination, I think that’s very likely to happen in the general election. by Richard Wise (35 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 88 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:12:18 PM (0+)
|
|
The Clintons Keep Bring Up Race and Gender
It is a little disingenous to say something negative about someone without offering one factual example to support what's being said. What words or behaviors employed by Barack Obama's campaign, after New Hampshire, demonstrates that he made "a claim of racism against Hillary." Actually, it sounds like the writer is puting the Clinton's behavior on Barack. The Clintons keep bringing up race, because they think that racializing Barack will hurt him. And they keep bringing up sex, because they think that feminizing Hillary will help her. The Clintons have very carefully crafted a campaign of divide and conquor, aimed at convincing the country that white women have an entitlement that trumps the achievement of a black man, and that black people are voting for Barack for racial reasons, and whites people should do the same on behalf of Hillary. The Clinton's racial strategy is described in "The Clinton's Talk Race and Gender," http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/251820 by Hargrove (22 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 26 comments) on Thursday, Mar 27, 2008 at 10:16:47 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: So Subtle
The Obama Camp's claims of racism would require that the whole country get a book on political correct speech for non-blacks. Folks would still step on toes cause the definition of what is racist keeps changing and becoming broader and broader. The Clintons are not racists. Clinton supporters are not racists. I am not a racist. To accuse us of being racists is playing the race card. And ... it is a losing hand -- for all of us. by Angie Pratt (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Thursday, Mar 27, 2008 at 10:33:26 AM (0+)
|
|
"For me this is VERY personal" (not Obama speaking)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVlwH7-05Fk For one candidate, it is in fact "personal". Hear her yourself. by Aurora (0 articles, 95 quicklinks, 52 diaries, 648 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Mar 27, 2008 at 3:56:26 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
